CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 20 9.8 As to the State party’s claim that the prosecution in the case is now time-barred and that the complainant has partly contributed to the slowdown of the investigation, the complainant submits that: (a) The delay by the HLC to submit the power of attorney to the Fourth Municipal Public Prosecutor of Belgrade should not have had any impact on the investigation, as the authorities should have taken all measures required to investigate the complainant’s allegations proprio motu. In any event, the only delay that can be attributed to the complainant is three and not seven months, as claimed by the State party.38 Even taking into account this delay, the State party had 2 years and 9 months to conduct an effective investigation before the institution of criminal proceedings became time-barred, and 5 years and 9 months before the absolute time-bar to any proceedings. (b) As to the alleged delay caused by the complainant’s failure to provide the prosecuting authorities with the exact addresses of witnesses, the complainant submits that the State party itself had admitted that locating the Roma witnesses was difficult because after the eviction the authorities were not aware of their whereabouts and the authorities failed to immediately contact the HLC and request its help in locating the relevant witnesses. In addition, the complainant notes that his and the other “Antena” residents’ eviction on 8 June 2000 violated relevant human rights standards.39 Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations of 19 June 2008 challenging the admissibility of the complaint and finds that the points raised by the State party are not such as to require the Committee to review its decision on admissibility, owing in particular to the State party’s failure either to initiate ex officio an investigation into the complainant’s allegations or to reveal the identity of the persons who caused bodily injury and verbally abused the complainant, thus preventing him from taking over the prosecution. Consequently, there was no domestic remedy left for the complainant that would enable him to take over the prosecution and to claim effective and sufficient redress for the treatment to which he was subjected to on 8 June 2000. The Committee therefore sees no reason to reverse its decision on admissibility. 10.3 The Committee proceeds to a consideration on the merits and notes that the complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 16, paragraph 1, read separately or in conjunction with articles 12 and 13, and article 14, read separately or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 38 The three months between the rejection of the complaint by the Prosecutor (on 19 February 2001) and the date when the HLC was informed of this decision (19 April 2001). 39 Reference is made to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 7: The right to adequate housing (Article 11 (1)): forced evictions, 1997 (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.8), paragraphs 13, 15 and 16.